Cheryl Schatz

Mara,

God asked for Isaac (then provided a lamb in his place). God never asked for Jephthah’s daughter, ever. That was all Jephthah idiocracy.

I agree. What on earth was he thinking???!!!

Hannah,

People are the ones that are sexist, and it sad that they don’t see it at times.

This is the really sad part and that so many blame God for the sexism instead of humanity.

Mara,

It, as mentioned above, kept the father out of the picture to make impatient demands on his wife.

Someone dear to my own heart told me that he believed God told him why a woman had a period each month and he said that it was to give a woman rest from the demands of her husband for a period of time. I never thought of it that way before. I guess we will have to ask God these kinds of questions when we get to Heaven.

Lin,

What about Lot being called righteous by Peter even though he offered up his virgin daughters to the men demanding he hand over his guests for sex? How could he have been righteous?

David was called “a man after God’s own heart” yet he committed adultery and murder. Lot’s failure in offering up his virgin daughters was not what made him righteous. Lot failed in many ways just like all of the great men and women of faith did. However the Bible does not sugar coat the account to make them look better than they were. He was still a sinner who failed God and man at times.

Kyle,
I am on your side on this one. I have determined to make use of the term in the creed to emphasize the eternal relationship and to point out that Father and Son are terms of reference to the incarnation. The relationship of love is eternal but the thought of an eternal Father and eternal Son has no real meaning outside of a beginning. I think that the fathers who wrote this one up were well-meaning but inaccurate.

Hannah,

The story of Jephthat’s daughter is a very tragic story of a rash promise used as a bargaining tool to get what Jephthat needed. It is actually an example of the ultimate abuse. The righteous person in the story turns out to be Jephthat’s daughter who not wanting her father to suffer for having a failed vow to the Lord, willingly offers herself to be killed by her father.

Judges 11:35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low, and you are among those who trouble me; for I have given my word to the LORD, and I cannot take it back.”

What is quite amazing is that after making a rash vow to the Lord and understanding the stupidity of having made his rash promise, he actually blames his daughter for bringing him trouble. It is an unfortunate event and one that should never have happened. However it is not a command by God for human sacrifice and there is provision in the law for the redemption of a sacrifice.

Lev 27:11 ‘If, however, it is any unclean animal of the kind which men do not present as an offering to the LORD, then he shall place the animal before the priest.
Lev 27:12 ‘The priest shall value it as either good or bad; as you, the priest, value it, so it shall be.
Lev 27:13 ‘But if he should ever wish to redeem it, then he shall add one-fifth of it to your valuation.

If a dog would have come out of Jephthah’s house first, the dog would not be considered a proper sacrifice as it was unclean.

The entire story is very unfortunate and a lesson regarding making hasty vows.

Thank you Javier! It is my opinion that we miss a lot if we skip over the exact words used in Genesis. There is no need to base our view on conjecture when there is so much already given to us in the Scripture if we would only pay attention. The exact words and the exact grammar dispel the myths that we have created.

Hi Jay,
Welcome to my blog!
As far as the Bible goes, it does record sexism just as it also records murder, rape and adultery. The question is not whether there is a record of man’s sexism, but whether God demands it. It is my opinion that God does not. What I see instead is God’s law limiting the extent of sexism allowed in a very sexist culture. It wasn’t until Jesus broke down the barriers through His death and resurrection that the death of sexism was fully dealt with by the indwelling Holy Spirit. Is there still sexism in the church? You bet! But God is changing all of us as we grow in Christ and the wickedness of our hearts are being softened and changed as we allow the work of the Holy Spirit to form us into the image of Christ. I speak here to include myself since I too felt that women were somehow inferior. There was a time that I looked with suspicion at women who used their gifts in public. God has done a miracle in my own heart and for that I give Him all the glory and praise.

Hi Kyle,

Welcome to my blog! Thanks also for your kind remarks.

The begetting of the Son is related to 1 Cor. 11:3 which is Christ not the LORD of hosts. The humanity of Jesus was begotten of the Father and even in His resurrection he is said to be begotten. As far as the LORD of hosts in the Trinity, since He is equal with the LORD God and had no beginning and no end, there is nothing that can be generated that wasn’t there before.

To be “generated” something is brought into existence. It is understandable that the body of the Lord Jesus was prepared by God and Jesus took on flesh Himself, but as far as His Spirit there can be no generation and “eternal generation” becomes nonsensical.

However having said that I understand that those who use this language do not really believe in a “begetting of the Spirit” as if that there would be a beginning rather than fully God. I do think that one can believe in the “eternal begetting” without having to believe in an eternal subordination. I believe that most just accept this as an eternal relationship rather than a bringing into existence something that wasn’t there before. I don’t know if anyone has ever really understood or explained how in eternity there could be a begetting without a beginning. I personally think that it is a regrettable term. But since the idea behind the term is fundamentally about an eternal relationship, I don’t make a big deal about it. But if we are going to be technical an eternal begetting or eternally begotten are two terms that are basically nonsensical in anything other than relationship.

Does this make sense?

Javier,
Eve’s eyes were not opened until the fruit was being digested so that it was becoming a part of her. Same for Adam. It happened to them together. If Adam had eaten first and the women ate right after him, it would have been the same eyes opening as the fruit acted as a poison not immediately but on digestion into the body.

However, if both were equals why was Adam responsible for what the woman did?

The Bible doesn’t say that Adam was responsible for what the woman did. God did not ask Adam what Eve did. God asked Eve what she did. God called Adam to account only for what He did or what He didn’t do but not for what Eve did. He carried the responsibility because he deliberately ate with his eyes wide open without deception.

Hi Susanna,

Welcome to my blog! You have done a lot of work and I thank you! I am also going to copy your posts over to our current discussion so that this important information can be viewed there. http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/11/12/mark-head-as-authority/

I hope that you stick around because I think there are a lot of good things that you can contribute here.

pinklight,
I think your brain is in high gear. You are way smarter than I am at this time of night. I have to wait until I can get some coffee in the morning. Good job at thinking this through. I think I might just wait until you finish processing and then you can teach me with your ability to reason through these things. You go girl!

By the way the two quotes above were of St. Ambrose from the Exposition of Christian Faith.

Another quote where the early church fathers deny that the term God in 1 Cor. 11:3 means father:

31. Let God, then, be the Head of Christ, with regard to the conditions of Manhood. Observe that the Scripture says not that the Father is the Head of Christ; but that God is the Head of Christ, because the Godhead, as the creating power, is the Head of the being created. And well said [the Apostle] “the Head of Christ is God;” to bring before our thoughts both the Godhead of Christ and His flesh, implying, that is to say, the Incarnation in the mention of the name of Christ, and, in that of the name of God, oneness of Godhead and grandeur of sovereignty.
    Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. X (266).

Here is proof that the early church fathers saw the term the incarnated Lord as “Christ” where God is His head.

32. But the saying, that in respect of the Incarnation God is the Head of Christ, leads on to the principle that Christ, as Incarnate, is the Head of man, as the Apostle has clearly expressed in another passage, where he says: “Since man is the head of woman, even as Christ is the Head of the Church;”26 whilst in the words following he has added: “Who gave Himself for her.”27 After His Incarnation, then, is Christ the head of man, for His self-surrender issued from His Incarnation.
33. The Head of Christ, then, is God, in so far as His form of a servant, that is, of man, not of God, is considered, But it is nothing against the Son of God, if, in accordance with the reality of His flesh, He is like unto men, whilst in regard of His Godhead He is one with the Father, for by this account of Him we do not take aught from His sovereignty, but attribute compassion to Him.
    Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. X (266).

Bruce Ware doesn’t seem to be able to see that, but he consistently elevates the Father to the point that highest authority, highest will, highest honor make the Father the only true Sovereign and Jesus and the Holy Spirit as secondary in they do not receive the highest honor.

If there is an inequality in honor, in praise, in will, in authority there will be an inequality in their essence. I don’t see how anyone can get around that. It is so amazing how people like Ware speak out of both sides of their mouth but never explain how having the highest of all things doesn’t effect the essence of the one who does not have the highest of all things.

Dave,

Just when I was losing interest…

Oh noooo…you can’t lose interest! I need your comments. Mark’s next post is up. Here is the link:
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/11/12/mark-head-as-authority/

Excellent words, gengwall! Good for all of us to meditate on this and throw off our false presuppositions. We are all subject to those false presuppositions but if we are lovers of the truth, we will earnestly desire the truth and not just to have our ears tickled by what we really want to find in the passage.

gengwall,
Looks like we posted at the same time 8)

So all of this talk about “head” as authority or “head” as origin really boils down to the context. This is why I felt that Mark’s work on the context would help his position. But unfortunately Mark has not yet shown from the context that his view was in Paul’s mind. I am open to hearing the other side even though I believe that origins is so clear in the context that it cannot be dismissed, but as of yet I have not been shown a single piece of evidence that Paul’s point was to show that men were superior in some way.

gengwall,
Thanks for the additional explanation. Perhaps I am too much into looking at the original languages that I forget that the English words are what people see first, not what the words mean in the context.

This is what I was hoping that Mark could help us with. Where is the context explicit talking about the authority of one person over another or of the superiority of one person over another? Somehow Mark thinks that because he has assumed his conclusion, that this is proof. It isn’t. What we need to see that would qualify as evidence is words or grammar that show the intent of rulership of the man. Surely if this is what the passage means in context there will be actual words and grammar to support this.

What is interesting is that Mark ignores all real evidence that shows origins – the word order showing order of origin from verse 3, the exact wording in verse 8 that describes origins. How can this be dismissed for a position of no evidence?

Guys, you tell me, is it really in all or most men to want to have superiority over women so that it is easy to read this into the text?

Mark,

So Cheryl in your opinion, verse 3 is referring to one husband/wife- Adam and Eve? Where then does Paul’s argument seperate from this first husband/wife to those in Corinth. What specific grammar allows for such a change?

Paul says “the man” in verse 3 as opposed to “every man” in verse 4. Since Paul is also talking about origins in verse 8 it should be obvious that the origin of the woman “the man” is Adam.

I would also like you to answer Kay’s question because I am also very interested in your response. Is it a sin for a woman to preach or teach in a “formal” church? Sin is a serious matter and God wants women to know what is sin so that we can avoid it. I want to know if you believe God has identified preaching and teaching in a “formal” church to be sin?

Mark,
You said:

It is spontaneous as the need arose or was led by the spirit. It was not and is not the gift of ‘teaching’ given to those who are the overseers.

Pardon me if someone already pointed this out, but God does not give gifts to “overseers”. God gives gifts to people who may then become “overseers”. There is not a special gift given as the gift of “overseership teaching” that is divided from regular teaching. This would be an addition again to the Scripture.

Also it appears that although women were now allowed to participate along with the men with this gift, they had thus rejected the creation order of male headship.

It appears? Where does it say that women have rejected a leadership set up from creation? Please point to the words in the passage where you get this from.

Yes women could now prophecy, but no they should not be dishonouring their husbands with an uncovered head.

Paul does not say that women “should not” pray with an uncovered head. Paul qualifies women’s uncovering with both a permission to uncover with stipulations that a woman may wear the head covering. Men are not given this leeway. They must not cover. Women are allowed the authority to make their own decision.

This is now the root problem Paul is addressing, women who were not being respectful to their ‘head’.

Paul does not say that women are not being respectful to their “head”. He gives the cultural mandate that says that uncovering dishonors the husband and then he allows her to uncover her head, cut her hair, shave her head or cover her head. It is her decision but she needs to respect her heads in making that decision as full freedom in Christ may offend her unsaved husband.

The inauguration of the Kingdom and the gifting of the Spirit did not override God’s creational order and men’s headship.

Removing the head covering had nothing to do with male authority. It had everything to do with cultural shame for the man and freedom in Christ from shame for the woman. This was her dilemma.

Note the creational order Paul uses to support his argument. Eve was made out of Adam and for Adam, not the other way around.

This creation order was necessary since creating Eve before Adam would not have allowed her to be made out of his body. She would then have been made out of dirt as he was and they would not have the intimate union of one flesh dividing and coming back together.

Verse 7 is the reason Paul gives for why a man (aner) should not cover his head- he is the image and glory of God.

No, the reason why Paul gives that the man was not cover is because it shames Christ. Since Christ is not to be shamed, the head covering must go.

Okay, that’s all I can do for tonight. I will catch up later another day.

Back to your paper, Mark.

2. ‘kephale- as I’m sure we are all aware we disagree on this word. If we take this to mean ‘source’ we naturally have to read the passage as man-woman relationships, not husband and wife? After all the husband is not the source of his wife.

If you didn’t pick this one up, the source of the woman is one man, her husband. The source issue in verse 8 is about the origin of man and woman (Adam and Eve).

To understand this as ‘source’ one must only be able to then understand it in relation to Christ’s incarnation; otherwise we fall into the heretical trap of seeing Jesus as a created being.

But “Christ” is only “Christ” from His incarnation. “Christ” is the term for the time that He took on flesh. “Christ” as the fleshly man had a beginning but the Word who became flesh did not have a beginning. So the source of Christ (who had a beginning in the flesh) is God.

And since there is nothing else in this text dealing with Christ’s incarnation it seems unlikely.

It is not unlikely at all since “Christ” is the man. The eternal God in the person of the LORD of hosts was never called “Christ” except in prophesy. Because Paul says that the “head” of Christ is God and not the “head” of The Word is God, we can be sure that this is talking about the incarnation.

But I do not think this supports the ‘source’ hypothesis over hierarchy, rather it gives ‘source’ as the basis for the authoritative teaching.

There is nothing in this passage that divides up teaching as “authoritative” and “non authoritative”. We are all given authority to speak in God’s name by the gifts that He has given us (1 Peter 4:11). I find it quite amazing that you add in things that are completely missing in the passage and we want us to accept that your additions are authoritative. Is this kind of like the “narrators” in the Old Testament that you say added things into the OT?

Before Paul addresses the present pastoral problem in Corinth

Apparently another “narrator” addition. Paul didn’t say there was a “pastoral” problem.

He is using this hierarchy to bolster his pastoral problem, namely the issue between the husbands/wives.

Paul doesn’t say that the issue is a “pastoral” problem. Rather he wants to give them the understanding of the Christian traditions that he has established. While Paul has forbidden men from wearing a head covering while praying and prophesying, Paul is now giving the reason for the prohibition. They followed his traditions, but now Paul says, he wants them to understand why.

But none the less what does Paul mean by “God (the Father) is the head of Christ”. This language is consistent with the Father and Son language used by Jesus and the rest of the New Testament.

Nowhere else is God said to be the “head” of Christ so we cannot know what Paul means until we understand the connection between the three sets of “heads”. The connection is origins and that is clear in verse 8.

These words imply what early theologians called the ‘eternal generation’ of the Son. The Son is and always will be equal in ‘homoousios’ (same substance). Yet he was and always will be under the headship of the Father (John 17, 1 Cor 15:24-28).

This simply is not true. If “head” means authority over, then what authority does the Father exercise over the Son when the Father turns everything over to the Son and the Son not only has “all” authority, but only the Son judges?

Yet later, in love, as a conquering Son, Jesus turns everything over to the Father. But this final submission of the human Son is not so that He can be eternally in a submission relationship, but so that God will be all in all. Before that the Son was acting as the Supreme and after the Son gives everything over to the Father, the divisions that we so readily see are no longer seen. God will be seen only eternally as One. All in all. Jesus never loses His kingdom or His rule. His rule becomes One with the entire Trinity.

Mark,
You said:

But what the three persons ‘did’ at creation was not the same.

You see such a division in the “roles” that perhaps you think that the Trinity cannot do things together the same time, the same way.

But what about the resurrection of Jesus? The Bible specifically says that the Father raised Jesus, the Son raised Himself and the Holy Spirit raised Jesus. If they can function in the same way in the resurrection and still be unique individuals in the ONE God, then why do you make different roles to be the only way that they are distinguishable? Were they not individuals still when they worked at the same job? I think that you have a faulty view of who God is and I think you are imposing a restriction on Him that is not in the Scripture.

2. You have not given any reason as to why i see Jesus as supposedly ‘lesser’. Are you reading into what i have said?

A hierarchy consists of a greater and lesser authority. If indeed the Father has the supreme authority and Jesus submits to that authority, then Jesus has less of the essential nature of all authority. A hierarchy cannot exist if each has the exact authority and the exact will.

Mark,
You said:

I know Cheryl sees this as husbands/wives, yet what i read of her interpretation of verse 3 seemed like she was referencing Adam/Eve.

You are not quite correct. While I see general pattern of the husband as the head of the wife in other passages, I believe that this passage is about one particular husband and one wife – Adam and Eve since it is about origins.

I might be reading Cheryl wrong here, but one cannot claim a husband/wife dualism and source, because the husband is not the source of his wife.

Yup you are reading me wrong about this passage. The very first man (the very first husband) was the point of origin for his wife.

Nor with what Paul details in chapter 15 about the final resurrection can i see his God/Christ reference referring to ’source’.

Not sure what you are referring to here.

In my opinion the only way ’source’ can be the intended meaning here is if we abandon that it is husband/wife dualism.

The problem you are having is that you are seeing all husbands here when the position of origins is the discussion with one husband (singular). Paul makes this clear in verse 8 that he is talking about the origin of man as Adam and the woman the came through him was Eve.

Also the way ’source’ has to be manipulated, made into synonomous meanings in order to portray ones understanding of the 3 relationships seems a bit forced in my view.

Well if we use the term “point of origin” instead of “source” would that make you happier? Not only is origins spoken of in verse 8 but the list in verse 3 is not a hierarchical list. Man, woman, Christ. That is origins not hierarchy.

From the point of origin Paul works out issues concerning “every man” and “every woman”. While much of what Paul says is about issues of shame and honor in marriage, it is clear that it was “all men” and not just the married ones who were forbidden from wearing the head covering in verse 4. However when Paul mentions “head” he is specifically referring to wives since no single woman had a human “head” to be concerned about.

Okay, last one and then I am out of here.

Also if people feel i have a wrong view of the Trinity please explain why Jesus saids the ‘Father’ sent him, and what the significance of 1 Cor 15 is. As yet i have never heard an egal reconcile these issues.

Jesus said that the Father sent him because this connected him to God as His source. The Jews knew God as their Father. And when Jesus called God His Father, they understood this meant that He was equal with God. But this doesn’t mean that only the Father sent Jesus. Actually Jesus sent Himself as He actively took on the form of a servant. This was active not passive. He sent Himself.

Mark,

If you dispute that Paul uses Theos to mean the Father primarily, please show me why you believe this. Am i allowed to quote gengwell…”just because you say it’s so, doesn’t mean it’s so”

Okay, then, look here.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

“the word was with God” Was Jesus only with the Father? “The Word was God” Is Jesus the Father?

Mark,

it was God the Father who spoke

But Jesus is the “Word” of God. He is the spoken word. Each person of the Godhead was intimately working together in each work of creation.

Dave,
You beat me to it! Mark seems to think that if he puts the word Father in brackets that this magically means that God must mean only the Father.

I have had frustrations like this with the JWs. I say that Jesus is God. They ask me how Jesus can talk to himself. I say that he isn’t talking to himself.

So I figured out how to deal with this. I ask the JWs if when I say that Jesus is God are they hearing me say that I believe Jesus to be the Father. Everyone I have asked says “yes”. This is the problem. God is not just the Father and when we limit this term to only the Father, we can seriously distort what the Scripture is saying.

The problem is that while the Father is God, He is not the only one who is God. There are times that Paul uses the term Father to mean specifically the Father. When he uses the term God, we need to think of the entire nature of God. IF we don’t understand that then we may become confused like the JW’s.

Onto the next point:

The whole implication lies in the point that by not covering her head, or the husband covering his head, he/she dishonours the ‘head’ above them- pretty obvious i would think.

So? What has dishonor to go with authority? Dishonor goes together with honor, not authority.

Not to mention Paul’s progression of verse 10 “For this reason…” and make sure we ask for what reason, the answer being that Eve was made from and for Adam, a wife should have authority on her head.

The term for “authority” here always means that the person themselves has the right, the power and the authority to do something. It is the woman’s authority to make the decision. If Paul was talking about the husband’s authority over the wife, wouldn’t it be the husband’s authority that would make the decision? But Paul doesn’t defer to the husband’s authority. He says that she is allowed to have the authority over her own head. Why should she have authority? Now that is the $64 question for a complementarian to answer.

She has her own authority because the body of Christ is to grow up and learn how to make decisions. Why? Because of the angels. Since this is a letter and Paul refers to the angels, all we need to do is go back to see what he has already told us about the angels. The context is our judging the angels. It is our decision making power. She has authority because she will be a judge. Paul’s argument now makes perfect sense.

3. Again in relation to verse 11 and 12, do not separate it from the rest of Paul’s argument. Doing this distorts the text and ignores the grammar. Note also in my introduction how i see this as relating back to Gen 2- this might help people understand what i am saying.

I am not the one separating verse 11 & 12 from the rest of Paul’s argument. Have you even read my exegesis of chapter 11? You are the one that is separating these verses because they have nothing to do with the man’s authority. How do you reconcile this equality with the theme of the passage which you say is superiority or authority over?